On
January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action seeking review
of the Commissioner's decision denying her disability
claim. ECF No. 1. On April 25, 2014, United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III issued a Report and
Recommendation which recommended reversing the
Commissioner's decision and remanding the case for
further administrative action. ECF No. 20. On August 28,
2014, the Court accepted the Report and Recommendation over
the Commissioner's objections. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff then
moved for attorney's fees of $4, 249.34 under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA), ECF No. 29, which the Court
granted by order dated February 26, 2015, ECF No. 32. On
August 4, 2015, the Social Security Administration issued a
Notice of Award to Plaintiff, indicating that Plaintiff and
her family members would receive retroactive benefits
beginning in January 2008. ECF No. 33-2.

This
social security matter is now before the Court on
Plaintiff's counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
83.VII.07, filed on November 5, 2015. ECF No. 33.
Plaintiff's attorney seeks to recover $12, 268.50 in
attorney's fees based on 25% of the total retroactive
benefits awarded.[1]Id. The motion and related
filings include relevant case law, the hourly rate
calculation for the requested fees, affidavits of other
experienced attorneys, and the fee agreement between
Plaintiff and her counsel. ECF Nos. 33, 38. The Commissioner
opposes the motion. ECF No. 35. Specifically, the
Commissioner agrees that Plaintiff's counsel is entitled
to fees but requests that the fees be “reduced to an
amount which will reasonably compensate the attorney's
and paralegals' 35 hours of representational work
performed before this Court.” Id. The
Commissioner also requests that Plaintiff's counsel
refund $4, 409.89 to Plaintiff because counsel previously
received this amount in EAJA fees. Id.
Plaintiff's counsel agrees that the EAJA fees should be
refunded and argues that paralegal fees should be considered
to analyze the reasonableness of the requested amount. ECF
No. 38.

The
Social Security Act provides that the Court may determine and
allow a reasonable fee for representation not to exceed 25%
of the total past-due benefits to which the claimant is
entitled. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The Court concludes
that counsel in this case has obtained a favorable result for
the Plaintiff, caused no unusual delay, and has provided
thorough and adequate representation. Furthermore, the amount
requested by counsel is not greater than 25% of the past-due
benefits recovered by Plaintiff as required by 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b).

The
Court finds that the agreement and requested fees in the
amount of $12, 268.50, representing an effective hourly rate
of $350.53 per hour, including 23.75 hours of
paralegal[2] and 11.25 hours of attorney work,
are reasonable in this case. The Court notes that, even if
paralegal work was not performed, the attorney would have
performed 35 hours of work at an average of $350.53 per hour.
This hourly rate is less than the contingent hourly amount
recommended for social security cases by four experienced
lawyers in their affidavits. ECF Nos. 33-3 at 4 (“I
bill at a non-contingent rate of $375/hour. [However,
c]ontingent fees should be higher than-and not just
equivalent to-a non-contingent fee to encourage lawyers to
assume the risk.”); 33-4 (attesting that the fair
market value of an experienced attorney in similar cases is
$450 per hour); 33-5 (attesting that the fair market value of
an experienced attorney's brief writing in similar cases
is $450 per hour); 33-6 (attesting that the fair market value
of an experienced attorney's brief writing in similar
cases is $450 per hour). The Commissioner argues generally
that the fees requested in this case are high. However, the
Commissioner has not responded to the affidavits provided by
the Plaintiff or asserted that the hours spent by the
attorney or the paralegal were inappropriate or inflated.

The
Court has carefully reviewed the relevant case law, the
filings, counsel's fee petition, and the accompanying fee
agreement. In light of the fact that the Commissioner has not
presented evidence to support her position, the Court finds
that the request for fees pursuant to § 406(b) is
reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees pursuant to
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), ECF No. 33,
is hereby GRANTED in the amount of $12,
268.50.

Because
Plaintiff's attorney was previously awarded
attorney's fees in this action pursuant to the EAJA in
the amount of $4, 409.89, that amount must be refunded to the
Plaintiff pursuant to Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535
U.S. 789, 796 (2002), resulting in a net fee award to
Plaintiff's attorney of $8, 019.60.

IT
IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Plaintiff received total net
back pay of $ $49, 074.00. Twenty-five percent of the net
back pay is $12, 268.50.

[2] In Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v.
Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008), the Supreme Court held
that a prevailing party that satisfies the EAJA&#39;s other
requirements is not limited in its recovery of paralegal fees
to its attorney&#39;s cost for such services, but may recover
its paralegal fees. While the instant case relates to the
Social Security Act, the Court in Richlin reasoned
that using paralegal work ultimately reduces ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.